It was a negative - not because it didn't work or something, but because it's all people are talking about now, when ideally people should be talking about Rubio's, Ryan's, or - best of all - Romney's speeches and platforms and so on.

"Conventional" wisdom is that it was a negative because it was the thing people were talking about rather than Mitt or Mitt's speech.

However, if it means that people won't remember Mitt's substance-free speech full of platitutes about parent's love and how the Rs all rallied around Pres. Obama with their support after the 2008 election, Clint was a net positive for him.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Did planes hit the 2 WTC towers? Yes. Ah but were they the airliners we were told they were? Evidence and physics seems to say NO!

It was a negative - not because it didn't work or something, but because it's all people are talking about now, when ideally people should be talking about Rubio's, Ryan's, or - best of all - Romney's speeches and platforms and so on.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

No difference. Don't understand why RNC leadership, or controllers of the message, were upset about it.
Perhaps, because Clint mocked the wars ever so slightly. Judging from the camera moving around the forum, not all Republicans looked pleased at that part.

I voted positive, because it is actually distracting from Romney's speech which was not very good. Romney did what most people expecting him to, he gave a speech about the results he wants, but once again did not provide a plan.